FOREIGN BODIES
Four diplomats reflect on the legacy of the Foreign Office’s historic ban on hiring gay, lesbian and transgender people
Last month, the Foreign Office apologised for a historic ban on gay, lesbian and transgender people working in the diplomatic service that lasted for 25 years after homosexuality was decriminalised. Attitude meets four LGBTQ+ Foreign Office diplomats to learn about the legacy of the ban and how it impacted their lives and their careers
In a statement made last month, 30 years after the biased and discriminatory policy banning LGBTQ+ people working for the government’s diplomatic services was lifted, the Foreign Office apologised for its “misguided” position and stated its regret for the exclusion of queer diplomats.
“The ban was in place because there was a perception that LGBT people were more susceptible than their straight counterparts to blackmail and, therefore, that they posed a security risk.” Sir Philip Barton, Permanent Under-Secretary at the Foreign, Commonwealth, and Development Office (FCDO) and Head of the Diplomatic Service, said in the statement. “Because of this misguided view, people’s careers were ended, cut short, or stopped before they could even begin. And the diplomatic service undoubtedly deprived itself of some of the UK’s brightest and best talent.”
Barton added, “I want to apologise publicly for the ban and the impact it had on our LGBT staff and their loved ones, both here in the UK and abroad.”
BECKS BUCKINGHAM, Chargé d’Affaires ad interim, British Embassy, Venezuela
Becks Buckingham is bisexual and is married to her non-binary partner. She serves as Chargé d’Affaires ad interim at the British Embassy in Venezuela and has been working for the Foreign Office since the 90s. Joining the organisation on the cusp of the ban being lifted means she has “literally seen and experienced the internal cultural shift [in attitudes towards LGBTQ+ members of staff] within the organisation” as well as the cultural moving-of-the-needle externally.
“It was a different world. Women would not be appointed to ambassadorships, and if you were a woman working in the Foreign Office and became pregnant, you were expected to resign. Today, we have women in every top position,” she says when we speak on the phone about her almost three decades of service.
Reflecting on the organisation today, she continues, “Of course, there is still work to be done, there are still pockets of discrimination, but the difference is remarkable; it’s incredibly welcoming.”
Although she and her wife enjoy protected status as LGBTQ+ diplomats, real-world implications remain. Previous postings didn’t allow for them to travel together as legally recognised married partners, but, Buckingham assures me,
“This isn’t just an LGBTQ+ thing; it’s a danger thing,” and that no diplomat is ever forced into a role they aren’t actively interested in pursuing. However, she points out, “It is not beyond the realms of possibility that a country could say,
‘We don’t want you here as an LGBTQ+ diplomat,’ but that has not happened.”
For the most part, Buckingham’s experience has been incredibly rewarding, “[On my tours] I’ve been really open about my sexuality with local staff — it’s been really important to me to role-model that.”
Even while working in Kabul, Afghanistan, and South Sudan, all of her staff knew she was in a same-sex relationship. Both countries are incredibly conservative places where you may, or may not get the death penalty for being LGBTQ+, but it could mean being ostracised by family or becoming a target for violence. That said, it is a moment in South Sudan that best frames the importance of out LGBTQ+ people within the Foreign Office: “The 17th of May is International Day Against Homophobia, Transphobia and Biphobia. I walked into the embassy in South Sudan and they had plastered the embassy in rainbow flags — I was very proud.”
In response to Sir Philip Barton’s apology, Buckingham says: “I’m very grateful. I’m thrilled that Philip did it, [it’s] really important that the FCDO, alongside the security agencies — and other parts of government that banned LGBTQ+ people, including the way people were vetted, is publicly addressed as wrong. Today, we get to bring our full selves to work; I am proud to say my wife and I have become role models of how things can be.”
BRIAN DAVIDSON, Her Majesty’s Consul General to Hong Kong
Brian Davidson is Her Majesty’s Consul General to Hong Kong, and married his husband Scott Chang in 2014. Together they have three children.
“To illustrate how far the Foreign Office has come, in representing the UK overseas, I hosted a Pride party in Thailand where drag queens danced in front of Queen Victoria’s statue,” he says.
However, although both Brian and Scott are currently quarantining in Hong Kong — they are unable to do so together. Despite Brian’s diplomat status, Scott is not recognised by the Hong Kong government as his husband. Currently, there are no laws against discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity in Hong Kong, and same-sex marriage remains banned in China. The couple were able to tie the knot on UK diplomatic territory in Hong Kong.
“All diplomats must have conversations about safety, travel inequalities, and cultural attitudes with family, but this is more nuanced with LGBTQ+ people — depending on the posting, and how high-profile the role is. The conversation becomes largely about the reception they will receive in a foreign country as an LGBTQ+ union and how to navigate and approach that,” says Davidson.
Although the pair thought they were being relatively “quiet” by marrying in what they believed to be a small ceremony, their big day has now been seen by 20 million people online. “We were one of the first same-sex couples to be married under UK law at the embassy in Beijing — we suddenly became a story. Our friends felt strongly that we were lucky enough to come from countries and to be supported by an organisation that supports who we are — we’ve become accidental activists. They’re right; today, it’s a fantastic place to work.”
As regards the Foreign Office apology, Davidson believes it to be momentous.
“The apology speaks volumes, Philip has a genuine commitment to equality, diversity, and inclusion. It’s also about changing HR policies, looking at the hidden issues that make it harder to be yourself. I know one or two people who were directly impacted by the ban and they feel a sense of gratitude for the apology also, as it did do real harm to them.”
“I KNOW ONE OR TWO PEOPLE WHO WERE IMPACTED BY THE BAN AND IT DID REAL HARM TO THEM”
SIR STEPHEN WALL GCMG LVO, former Permanent Representative to the European Union and British ambassador to Portugal
Sir Stephen Wall GCMG LVO is former Permanent Representative to the European Union and Britain’s ambassador to
Portugal. Now a retired British diplomat, he is currently chair of the board of the Kaleidoscope Trust — a charity campaigning for LGBT+ rights overseas.
Wall sheds some light on what he feels was the catalyst for the ban being lifted. “In 1968, a year after decriminalisation [of homosexuality], I was asked by the Foreign Office whether I had had any homosexual experiences. I had and told them a story about an experience at school. They laughed and then asked if I had any homosexual tendencies as an adult. To which I lied, and said, ‘No, I don’t’. I spent much of my life closeted due to these external attitudes.”
Although we celebrate decriminalisation today, in reality for a time it played a huge role in fuelling homophobia in the UK.
Wall agrees: “Yes, because the law was so narrowly defined.” Legal sex between two men, in fact, meant two men having sex in a private bedroom, in an otherwise empty house. Two men in a hotel room was still illegal. Even two men in a private home, with someone downstairs, in another room was punishable by law.
The Sexual Offences Act 1967 legalised homosexual acts in England and Wales, so why does Wall think the Foreign Office’s ban on LGBTQ+ diplomats was only lifted some 25 years later?
“Attitudes didn’t really change after decriminalisation; it wasn’t until the 1980s, despite Margaret Thatcher and Section
28. In the late 80s, a case came to Patrick Wright, who at the time was Permanent Secretary — a diplomat’s ex-boyfriend had threatened to out him to The Sun newspaper. He decided to come out and get ahead of the story. He lost all of his security privileges as a result, and was reassigned into a different role. Patrick Wright was so moved by this that he was convinced something had to be done.
That’s when the ball started rolling.”
Wall continues, “The collapse of the Soviet Union and Eastern European bloc at the end of the 80s also helped as one of the major factors in the Foreign Office’s decision to lift the ban. The Soviet system actively went out to blackmail people. As an example, in Moscow, the accommodation where diplomats lived was run by the state and the people that did the cleaning were provided by the authorities. They’d start by sending a beautiful woman in to do the cleaning — and if that didn’t work, they’d send in a beautiful young man — and if someone fell for either, they’d be blackmailed.”
The idea that queer people are “more susceptible” to blackmail could be viewed as a convenient cover for homophobia. However, in 1962, while working as a clerk in the British Embassy in Moscow, homosexual civil servant John Vassall was caught in a honey trap sprung by the Soviet Secret Service. He was blackmailed into passing secrets to the Soviet Union, which resulted in 18 years’ imprisonment for espionage. For gay men like Vassall, homosexuality was still illegal in the UK and punishable by law with a prison sentence.
“NOBODY HAD SAID THAT WHAT USED TO HAPPEN WAS WRONG — PEOPLE SUFFERED”
NICOLE DAVISON, British Consul General to Vancouver
Nicole Davison is British Consul General to Vancouver and joined the Foreign Office in 1988, aged 19 — it is the only organisation she has ever worked for. “I joined knowing I was gay, and around four years later, the ban was lifted. While it was momentous, it still took a while for attitudes to change,” says Davison. She became the co-founder of the Foreign Office’s LGBTQ+ group, FLAGG [Foreign Office Lesbian And Gay Group], which would be pivotal in furthering the positive treatment of LGBTQ+ members of staff.
“Even after the ban was lifted, if you were deemed to be a security risk, you’d have a large yellow tag appended to your security file. That tag could be for a number of reasons. If you were LGBTQ+, you’d automatically have a yellow tag. So, you were still marked in some way.”
FLAGG petitioned to remove the yellow tags, stating that they as LGBTQ+ people were not automatically a security risk. As a result, tags for LGBTQ+ people were removed in 1998.
Commenting on the apology made by
Sir Philip Barton, Davison says: “I’m so glad that it happened — it felt like the final step, the ban had been lifted, the yellow tags removed, but no one had ever said that what used to happen was wrong. Nobody had acknowledged the impact it had on people — they suffered and were often outed. For me it was the final step and closed a chapter.”
For those the ban directly impacted, Davison says, “I appreciate that it will never change things for them and can’t undo the wrongs, but hopefully it had meaning and closure for them. We’ve gone from an organisation that didn’t allow for us to exist internally to one that publicly advocates for LGBTQ+ inclusion externally. We now have policies in place that support samesex partners, we’ve also translated this into international work that advocates for LGBTQ+ rights around the world.”
Although Sir Philip never mentions homophobia, he noted that, “In the 30 years since the ban was lifted, the FCDO has made great progress in becoming a proud and inclusive employer of LGBT people.” He also highlighted the work the UK does to further LGBT rights overseas.
He continued: “I pay tribute to all our LGBT staff — past and present — who helped secure change within the Diplomatic Service, while representing their country with professionalism and dedication.”
Today, the ban perfectly frames Britain and its attitude towards queer people at the time. The law itself informed how organisations operated, how homophobia was itself protected, which feeds into the cultural understanding around LGBTQ+ identities. Although there is some truth in LGBTQ+ people possibly being more susceptible to blackmail in the past, between careers, love, and necessary human connection, they ultimately didn't stand a chance.
It’s for these reasons that Sir Philip Barton's apology on behalf of the Foreign Office is a vital step forward in healing the wounds of the past.